Strengthening Justice Delivery Through Safe AI Adoption

Syllabus: GS2/ Governance, GS3/ Science & Technology

Context

• The Kerala High Court became the first in India to publish a set of guidelines on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the district judiciary.

Opportunities of AI in Judicial Processes

• Case Management and Efficiency: AI can help in sorting, tagging, and prioritising cases, reducing administrative burden on court staff.
  • The Supreme Court’s AI tool SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency, 2021) assists judges in quickly identifying relevant precedents.
• Translation and Accessibility: India has 22 scheduled languages and hundreds of dialects. AI-powered translation can make judicial documents and judgments accessible across linguistic barriers.
  • The SUVAAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) project has translated thousands of judgments into regional languages.
• Legal Research and Knowledge Support: AI-driven search tools can help lawyers and judges locate relevant precedents faster, reducing delays.
  • Globally, countries like the U.K. and Singapore use AI platforms for legal analytics and predictive insights into case outcomes.
• Transcription and Record-Keeping: Automated transcription of oral arguments and witness depositions improves accuracy and reduces delays in preparing case records.
• Improving Access to Justice: AI chatbots and virtual assistants can help litigants, especially those without legal representation, navigate procedures, track case status, and file petitions.
  • DoNotPay, an AI-powered legal assistant in the U.S., demonstrates how litigants can be empowered through technology.
• Support for the eCourts Project: AI aligns with the Vision Document for Phase III of the eCourts Project, which aims to digitise and modernise the Indian judiciary.

Emerging Concerns of AI in Judiciary

• Errors and Hallucinations: 
  • AI mistranslations and transcription errors risk distorting records.
  • Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to fabricate case laws and citations.
• Bias and Dependence: 
  • AI-enabled legal research may show search bias, excluding relevant precedents.
  • Over-reliance risks reducing adjudication to rule-based outputs, sidelining nuanced human judgment.
• Data Protection and Privacy: Absence of clear frameworks on storage and use of judicial data raises concerns.
• Infrastructure Gaps: Courts face uneven Internet connectivity, outdated hardware, and limited technical expertise.

Guardrails for Responsible AI Use

• AI Literacy and Capacity Building: Judges, lawyers, and court staff must be trained to use AI effectively and to understand its limitations.
  • Judicial academies and bar associations should collaborate with AI governance experts.
• Transparency and Consent: Litigants must be informed if AI tools are used in adjudication.
  • A mechanism for litigants to opt-out of AI-assisted processes should be considered.
• Procurement and Evaluation Frameworks: Standardised procurement guidelines should assess AI tools for reliability, explainability, data security, and risk mitigation.
  • Pre-procurement studies must ensure that AI is the best solution for a given problem.
• Institutional Mechanisms: Establish technology offices within the judiciary, as envisaged under eCourts Phase III, to oversee AI adoption.
  • Specialists should monitor vendor compliance, infrastructure needs, and system performance.

Global Best Practices

• European Union: The EU AI Act (2024) classifies judicial AI as “high-risk”, requiring rigorous oversight, human accountability, and safeguards against bias. This reflects the EU’s broader approach of prioritising rights and ethics over speed of adoption.
• Singapore: Its judiciary follows a strict human-in-the-loop model where AI assists in tasks like research and document review but never replaces judicial reasoning. Singapore also runs judicial innovation labs to test AI tools before adoption.
• China: It has established “smart courts”, where AI assists in case filing, judgment recommendations, and even drafting opinions. 

Source: TH